These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Winter] Existing destroyer rebalancing

First post
Author
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2012-08-09 11:54:02 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Hello folks,

While CCP Fozzie is having a look at remaining frigates we can start talking about having a look at existing destroyers here. The new destroyers announced in the summer update blog will be discussed in another topic.

This ship class is aimed to be an anti-frigate platform, and should trade resilience, mobility for firepower. The extra role we want for planetary bombardment will come at a later date. Existing destroyers are mostly fine as they are right now, except for the Coercer which has some serious issues, so the changes are pretty minimal so far.

As always, constructive comments are welcome.


Suggested changes are mentioned below:

COERCER:

One medium slot is highly impractical for any kind of solo or even small gang fit and has been changed. Fittings also were quite low and should allow to squeeze medium pulse lasers, even medium beams with the module changes listed below.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M (+1), 3 L (-1)
  • Fittings: 85 PWG (+10), 168 CPU (+8)
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 700 (+12) / 900 (+40) / 800 (+70)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 700 (-3) / 370 s / 1.9
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 255 (+3) / 2.75 (-0.1485) / 4.28 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 525 / 6
  • Sensor strength: 10 Radar
  • Signature radius: 62



CORMORANT:

Swapped one medium for one low slot, altered fittings to compensate. Capacitor, agility and signature radius were inconsistent with other Caldari ships and have been adjusted.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M (-1), 2 L (+1)
  • Fittings: 68 PWG (+13), 200 CPU (-15)
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 900 (+40) / 700 (+12) / 700 (+23)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 600 (-25) / 320 s (-13) / 1.9
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250 (+1) / 2.5 (+0.231) / 4.42 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 36km / 475 / 7
  • Sensor strength: 12 Gravimetric
  • Signature radius: 65 (-3)



CATALYST:

Slot layout untouched. Brought capacitor amount, agility and signature radius in-line with the revamped frigates and other destroyer variants.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 2 M, 3 L
  • Fittings: 60 PWG, 170 CPU
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 750 (+5) / 800 (-3) / 900 (+118)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 650 (+64) / 350 s (+37.5) / 1.8
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 265 (-1) / 2.45 (-0.352) / 4.04 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 33km / 500 / 7
  • Sensor strength: 11 Magnetometric
  • Signature radius: 68 (+3)



THRASHER:

Left untouched apart from some minor adjustments.


  • Destroyer skill bonuses: unchanged
  • Slot layout: 8 H, 3 M, 2 L
  • Fittings: 70 PWG, 170 CPU
  • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 (-3) / 750 (+5) / 750 (+125)
  • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 550 (+3) / 290 s (-1.6) / 1.9
  • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 270 (+2) / 2.89 / 4.17 s
  • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
  • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27km / 550 / 6
  • Sensor strength: 9 Ladar
  • Signature radius: 56


MODULES:

The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.


  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All light missile variations: explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2 - 2012-08-09 12:06:43 UTC
Good start - interesting to see how this shakes up the landscape.
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
Sindication
#3 - 2012-08-09 12:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
COERCER:

  • Signature radius: 83

CORMORANT:

  • Signature radius: 86 (-4)

CATALYST:

  • Signature radius: 90 (+4)

THRASHER:

  • Signature radius: 75

Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before?

Edit: Wait, actually... Hey, Ytterbium, you know that the destroyers were changed recently already? All your changes are based off the old stats...
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#4 - 2012-08-09 12:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Madner Kami wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
COERCER:

  • Signature radius: 83

CORMORANT:

  • Signature radius: 86 (-4)

CATALYST:

  • Signature radius: 90 (+4)

THRASHER:

  • Signature radius: 75

Really? After finally reducing their sig-size to some sensible numbers just a few patches ago, you go back and nerf them again to were they were before?


Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update. OopsEvil

Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious.

Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that.
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
Sindication
#5 - 2012-08-09 12:53:30 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Err, no, that's typo from an old spreadsheet I used and forgot to update. OopsEvil

Will change that, no beatings, they hurt us, yes they do my precious.

Edit: hang on, noticing more screw-ups from old spreadsheet ARRG. Will update main post asap, sorry about that.


/me snickers

Pre-Thanks for fixing it P
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
Snuffed Out
#6 - 2012-08-09 13:02:16 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
COERCER:

You guys get us the best presents. Can we have it a week before the Reds do? Please? We've been good.
Toterra
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-08-09 13:25:16 UTC
Can you please change the warp speed of the destroyer to match the frigates. It needs to warp at the same 6au/s as a frigate to keep up with frigate gangs. Sortof like how battlecruisers warp at the same speed as cruisers.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-08-09 13:28:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Coercer with 2 mids, finally!

Better light missiles and the laser fitting reduction I can also fully get behind.

I'm not sure though if it's going to be enough for medium beam lasers to become attractive when their extra range over scorch means relatively little at the frigate level due to high ship speeds.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#9 - 2012-08-09 13:34:52 UTC
Ok fixed the main post: HP, signature radius and capacitor were incorrect before. That's what I get for using tons of spreadsheets and mixing new ones with older, pre-Crucible data. EvilUghSad
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#10 - 2012-08-09 13:36:05 UTC
The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Sad

Option 1 : 8 turret slots.
Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-08-09 13:39:13 UTC
Subtle Thrasher buff?

Coercer - interesting to see how the fitting and weapon changes pan out. It was always a strong ship just could not tackle.

Catalyst - Slight stat buff, now worst powergrid by far.

Corm - Nerf? Its real key advantage over the other ships was its ability to fit prop, scram, web and shield tank. For me it was this combination that meant it could handle faction frigs and the other destroyers when fit well. The only target ships I would avoid in the corm were the Gallente/Caldari assault ships (resist profile) and the Daredevil. Really not sure why you would ever choose this over the Thrasher now, if you have to give it a low then take the rocket high slot. But still I do not think it needs such a drastic change. With this and the plate changes you may start to see 400mm T2 plate corms. Slower but tougher.

Thrasher - Generally receives a buff to the already top destroyer.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#12 - 2012-08-09 13:41:54 UTC
Option 3 : only 7 highs but keep the 4 medslots.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2012-08-09 13:42:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
Yay! I can use low slot(s) for something other than CPU/Grid modules to wedge in all the guns (maybe)! The rest of the changes seem like really minor tweaks. Will have to play around with this on SISI when it shows up.
Grog Drinker
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-08-09 13:44:53 UTC
Coercer is my favorite ship currently and will be pretty fun with the changes.

Any thoughts on changing the Thrashers 50% optimal bonus to a falloff bonus to keep it inline with the projection of other dessies?
Jarvin Xadi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-08-09 13:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarvin Xadi
Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#16 - 2012-08-09 13:52:54 UTC
Jarvin Xadi wrote:
Confirmation: do you mean the small laser turrets called medium lasers, or the medium laser turrets that go up to heavy? I assume you mean the former, but with the slightly irritating nameing convention for lasers, its worth checking.


We are talking about the small sized turrets here, that like to call themselves "medium" just to confuse everyone. We should probably rename them to something that actually match their proper size.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
The Mockers AO
#17 - 2012-08-09 13:53:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
I see what you did there.... Snuck in the light missile discussion under the destroyer thread...


/me wags finger. Cool

All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%

I wonder if this will help light missiles be used a bit more. I was somewhat hoping for a second or two off of the launch time. But I'm wondering how this will do for them.


The destroyers are pretty disgusting anti-frig platforms at the moment. Honestly, even assault frigates really don't want to go up against them. There seems to be something slightly wrong with that?

Some of them can do more DPS than a battlecruiser, and while they don't have the survivability of one, it still seems over the top. Especially with a 600 DPS Catalyst fit with Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, you don't even need tackle to rip the face off of some ships.

I don't know what the correct answer is for this, but I think you may want to examine this situation with Destroyers.

Where I am.

Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2012-08-09 14:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Bloodpetal wrote:

The destroyers are pretty disgusting anti-frig platforms at the moment. Honestly, even assault frigates really don't want to go up against them. There seems to be something slightly wrong with that?


That's more or less working as intended I believe.


Quote:
Some of them can do more DPS than a battlecruiser, and while they don't have the survivability of one, it still seems over the top. Especially with a 600 DPS Catalyst fit with Medium Ancillary Shield Booster, you don't even need tackle to rip the face off of some ships.


I personally think that small blasters did not need a buff, so they are a bit too good now. And the ASB is definitely too good.

It's not a problem with the destroyer hulls, just some modules. The only destroyer were something was clearly wrong with the hull was/is the Coercer.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#19 - 2012-08-09 14:33:10 UTC
I really don't buy this cap amount thing. Why don't you give minmatar actual worse cap/sec?

How about giving them all 8 turrets? I do really love salvaging a lot, but I would honestly prefer having 8 turrets on my cormorant.

Still only 2 mids on the catalyst? Then I guess I'll have to continue not flying it.

I'd like to see some consistency with range bonuses (and I guess a massive revamp of t2 ammo and tracking enhancers, but that won't happen ever).
Vakr Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-08-09 14:37:51 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
The cormorant was a bad destroyer, now it's the worst. Sad

Option 1 : 8 turret slots.
Option 2 : give her 6 launcher slots. Yes they don't have any hull bonus, but it could be fun.
In the Summer Update they said they're looking at adding more hulls to the Destroyer lineup.
From Ship Balancing Summer Update
"But wait, there is more. More ships that is, as we think the destroyer class currently is a little small with only four hulls. That is why we want to introduce new tech 1 destroyers to fill roles that are not yet covered – as such, Amarr / Gallente would receive additional drone boats, while Caldari / Minmatar would be more missile based."
123Next pageLast page